The BBC feel they exist in a competitive environment and want to attract TV stars to enable them to compete with the other main channels – they’ll look bad if their share of TV viewers is too low and justifying the amount given to them from the TV license becomes harder.
This idea of talent is a tricky one. Clearly footballers exist in a competitive environment and the best will attract lots of money as they’re deemed to be worth so much to certain clubs – image rights, attracting supporters and sponsors, TV money….
TV companies know that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton attract lots of viewers and build TV shows around them – they heavily influence the size of TV audiences. TV companies will pay lots of money for these people in the same way football clubs do for players. Going down the salary list less people will watch a show just because, say, Nick Knowles, is involved; perhaps they love his property renovation show but do they watch a TV quiz as he’s the presenter? Maybe they do or maybe in order to keep Nick working for the BBC they give him more money and get him to do other stuff to justify?
As for women v men salaries – well that’s the price of being ‘talent’. You’re a commodity not a person and benefit greatly from that – just men do better for some reason. Some may not like them but Chris Evans and Jonathan Ross have something pretty rare and I can’t name a woman who can compete.